Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
Wolf: species:C. lupus
Great Dane: species: C. lupus
Chihuahua: species: C.lupus
mojavensis: species: Drosophila
arizonae: species: Drosophila
You fail.....
wolf: canis lupus
domestic dog: Canis lupus familiaris
The domestic dog is what we call a SUB species of the gray wolf.
Drosophila mojavensis
Drosophila arizonae
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.93/abstractShape variation was quantified using elliptic Fourier descriptors and compared among the four D. mojavensis host races, and between D. mojavensis and its sister species Drosophila arizonae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_species
A sister group or sister taxon is a systematic term from cladistics denoting the closest relatives of a group in a phylogenetic tree.[1] The expression is most easily illustrated by a cladogram:
(see diagram in link)
The sister group to A is B. Likewise, the sister group to B is A. These two groups, together with all other descendants of their last common ancestor, constitute a clade; its sister group is C. The whole cladogram will again be rooted in a larger tree, offering yet more further removed sister groups. As per cladistic standards, A, B, and C may here represent specimens, species or groups. In cases where they represents species, sister species is sometimes used.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stmthe University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.
Poor @bambu.. just holding onto what little he has (and failing) but still has not refuted all evidence for evolution and is avoiding the fossil records like the plague. Cannot explain ? with his intelligent design theory while the functioning of the universe is continuing to be made more clear by the theory of evolution.. hilarious
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »You should also take a look at this since you asked for itWest Brooklyn wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."[1]
Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a counterexample to transitivity.[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01
If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.
Ensatina has been recognized as a ring species since the 1940s, when biologist Robert C. Stebbins trooped up and down California to investigate its range. Since then, several generations of scientists in Stebbins' institution, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC Berkeley, have continued these studies, digging deeper into Ensatina's history and biology. At this point, one might think we'd know it all. What more could there be to learn after 60 years of research on a common salamander? "Lots!" says Tom Devitt, a graduate student at the museum. Tom studies Ensatina to flesh out its evolutionary history — but not just for Ensatina's sake. This classic example sheds light on the basic evolutionary processes that shape all life.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »waterproof wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »@bambu displays perfectly addiction to beliefs. Even when
handed solid evidence opposing his views, he is blinded by his superstitions and ignorance. And @waterproof is so ignorant in general, all he can add to the topic is an argument over posting pictures.. Nothing relevant to bring to the table at all. Maybe you should go back in your hebrew thread and continue to ? around.. post Goodie Mob songs and talk about your fairy tales and the voices in your head; you know.. ? you know about. Both of you are clowns. You should pray for yourselves.
@Westbrooklyn (rant not included)
I didn't read any of this but thanks for putting time and effort into the responsewaterproof wrote: »yo this ? guy @westbrooklyn is losing his mind, he's out of character right now i mean the emotional and mental beating you laying is causing him to become beast like in his manner
If by emotional and mental beating, you mean making me laugh, sure
Ol ? ass chump, u even look like a ? ....u read what I post it provoke an emotional response from u, not only u is a ? but u is a ? ass liar.
This what a ? do, in bambu third eye thread u was on some humble ? beginning the elohim bambu for books, knowledge and information, calling him G sounding real ? like, but bambu knows ur type and was like here bi polar ass ? then in this thread u cursing the brother after begging for knowledge.
U make brooklyn look real suspect -
West Brooklyn wrote: »The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.West Brooklyn wrote: »The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.West Brooklyn wrote: »The evolution of the domesticated dog is something that humans contributed to, but it still proves evolution. If evolution was false, humans would not have been able to do that.
The evolution of drosophila is something humans did not have a hand in.
You fail.
Wolf: species:C. lupus
Great Dane: species: C. lupus
Chihuahua: species: C.lupus
mojavensis: species: Drosophila
arizonae: species: Drosophila
You fail.....
Try again muthafucker.....
-
Species names are a big deal to you Bambu?
Primula verticillata and P. floribunda were crossed and sterile hybrids resulted. However in a few cases polyploidization occurred which resulted in a new specie, P. kewensis.
Many new species often do not get species names. The nylon eating bacteria is Flavobacterium Sp K172. That is species K172. This is also a new species that evolved in the wild and has a new species name. -
waterproof wrote: »(emotions not included)
*yawn* are you finished?
1. Get off his nuts. The first shot since my post on the evolution of they eye was thrown by ignorant ass @bambu and he's been handed well deserved ether since then
2. You don't even know what Brooklyn means. Your emotions are showing. -
Try again muthafucker.....
Nothing new to say? As I thought, clown.West Brooklyn wrote: »wolf: canis lupus
domestic dog: Canis lupus familiaris
The domestic dog is what we call a SUB species of the gray wolf.
Drosophila mojavensis
Drosophila arizonae
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.93/abstractShape variation was quantified using elliptic Fourier descriptors and compared among the four D. mojavensis host races, and between D. mojavensis and its sister species Drosophila arizonae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_species
A sister group or sister taxon is a systematic term from cladistics denoting the closest relatives of a group in a phylogenetic tree.[1] The expression is most easily illustrated by a cladogram:
(see diagram in link)
The sister group to A is B. Likewise, the sister group to B is A. These two groups, together with all other descendants of their last common ancestor, constitute a clade; its sister group is C. The whole cladogram will again be rooted in a larger tree, offering yet more further removed sister groups. As per cladistic standards, A, B, and C may here represent specimens, species or groups. In cases where they represents species, sister species is sometimes used.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stmthe University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.
Poor @bambu.. just holding onto what little he has (and failing) but still has not refuted all evidence for evolution and is avoiding the fossil records like the plague. Cannot explain ? with his intelligent design theory while the functioning of the universe is continuing to be made more clear by the theory of evolution.. hilarious
-
Species names are a big deal to you Bambu?
Primula verticillata and P. floribunda were crossed and sterile hybrids resulted. However in a few cases polyploidization occurred which resulted in a new specie, P. kewensis.
Many new species often do not get species names. The nylon eating bacteria is Flavobacterium Sp K172. That is species K172. This is also a new species that evolved in the wild and has a new species name.Silly ? .....
Your previous posts does not prove ? ......
1) All "new species" that were observed are hybrids that are sterile (unable to produce offspring)......
2) A "new species" that is unable to survive without aid from scientists *Einstein or Frankenstein*
3) In some rare cases scientists have been able to manipulate the gene pool so that some are able to reproduce......
This actually provides more evidence for creationism rather than evolution.....
Can you read ? ????
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Your research, deconstructed.....
Sterile males
In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.
In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications. *Einstein or Frankenstein*
Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
Here is my theory again stupid ? ....
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind.... -
West Brooklyn wrote: »waterproof wrote: »(emotions not included)
*yawn* are you finished?
1. Get off his nuts. The first shot since my post on the evolution of they eye was thrown by ignorant ass @bambu and he's been handed well deserved ether since then
2. You don't even know what Brooklyn means. Your emotions are showing.
Ol hoe ass bite the hand that feeds u ass bi polar who's mother and father crawled on all fours foolish ass ? , u represent broken land because u is a broken ? -
waterproof wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »waterproof wrote: »(emotions not included)
*yawn* are you finished?
1. Get off his nuts. The first shot since my post on the evolution of they eye was thrown by ignorant ass @bambu and he's been handed well deserved ether since then
2. You don't even know what Brooklyn means. Your emotions are showing.
Ol hoe ass bite the hand that feeds u ass bi polar who's mother and father crawled on all fours foolish ass ? , u represent broken land because u is a broken ?
lol.. you should try stand up -
1. None of the species I mentioned were sterile.
2. None of the species I mentioned needed the aid of scientist. They also occur in nature.
3. None require special manipulation of their gene pool. -
1. None of the species I mentioned were sterile.
2. None of the species I mentioned needed the aid of scientist. They also occur in nature.
3. None require special manipulation of their gene pool.
1) Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
2) Flavobacterium is a genus of Gram-negative, non-motile and motile, rod-shaped bacteria that consists of ten recognized species, as well as three newly proposed species (F. gondwanense, F. salegens, and F. scophthalmum).
All of which belong to the Flavobacterium species....
3) Where is the new species?????
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »Wolf: species:C. lupus
Great Dane: species: C. lupus
Chihuahua: species: C.lupus
mojavensis: species: Drosophila
arizonae: species: Drosophila
You fail.....
wolf: canis lupus
domestic dog: Canis lupus familiaris
The domestic dog is what we call a SUB species of the gray wolf.
Drosophila mojavensis
Drosophila arizonae
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.93/abstractShape variation was quantified using elliptic Fourier descriptors and compared among the four D. mojavensis host races, and between D. mojavensis and its sister species Drosophila arizonae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_species
A sister group or sister taxon is a systematic term from cladistics denoting the closest relatives of a group in a phylogenetic tree.[1] The expression is most easily illustrated by a cladogram:
(see diagram in link)
The sister group to A is B. Likewise, the sister group to B is A. These two groups, together with all other descendants of their last common ancestor, constitute a clade; its sister group is C. The whole cladogram will again be rooted in a larger tree, offering yet more further removed sister groups. As per cladistic standards, A, B, and C may here represent specimens, species or groups. In cases where they represents species, sister species is sometimes used.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stmthe University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.
Poor @bambu.. just holding onto what little he has (and failing) but still has not refuted all evidence for evolution and is avoiding the fossil records like the plague. Cannot explain ? with his intelligent design theory while the functioning of the universe is continuing to be made more clear by the theory of evolution.. hilarious
Stupid ? ....
wolf: species: canis lupus
domestic dog: species: Canis lupus: subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris
Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila
Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila
In both examples there is only one species........
Smart/Dumb ? ......
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »waterproof wrote: »(emotions not included)
*yawn* are you finished?
1. Get off his nuts. The first shot since my post on the evolution of they eye was thrown by ignorant ass @bambu and he's been handed well deserved ether since then
2. You don't even know what Brooklyn means. Your emotions are showing.
1) I been schooling this ? ass ? Jaded Righteousness..... I seen you trying to get some respect in your tone in my thread.....
However you still a ? herb.... and get dealt with accordingly...........
2) New York been soft ever since Snoop went through and crushed the buildings....... -
1) Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
2) Flavobacterium is a genus of Gram-negative, non-motile and motile, rod-shaped bacteria that consists of ten recognized species, as well as three newly proposed species (F. gondwanense, F. salegens, and F. scophthalmum).
All of which belong to the Flavobacterium species....
3) Where is the new species?????
The Polyploidization variant that also occurred were fertile. Thank you for walking into that trap. I assumed you would latch onto the non-polyploidization plants that were non-fertile doing whatever you could to maintain your position even adopting something factual false.
"Flavobacterium is a genus" from the talk origins page your are quoting. Also the source of some of my info.
Then you say "All of which belong to the Flavobacterium species"
Perhaps basic Biology (well Zoology really) is in order here. Linnaes developed a category system for organisms. The most detail levels were the genus and species. This system also include kingdom, phylum, class, and order. As you quote but apparently did not read you list 3 different species of Flavobacterium (F. gondwanense, F. salegens, and F. scophthalmum) F. Sp. K172 is a unique species that arose in the wild to feed on nylon in the waste product pools near a Japanese factory.
Bambu it is one thing to argue an interpretation of the facts but you are making arguments that are not factually consistent within the quotes you are posting. Maybe you should go back to posting that picture of the ? 100 years old book about how our faces developed. That one, while having almost nothing to do with current evolution theory, was an ugly piece of racism at least.
-
Stupid ? ....
wolf: species: canis lupus
domestic dog: species: Canis lupus: subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris
Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila
Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila
In both examples there is only one species........
Smart/Dumb ? ......
Drosophila is the genus. A genus is a grouping of similar species. A species is a unique reproductively isolated group with in a genus.
Typically the species mojavesis would be written D. mojavensis
-
In biological nomenclature, a type species is the species to which the name of a genus is permanently linked; it is the species that contains the biological type specimen(s) of the taxon.
i.e. Flavobacterium, Drosophila and Primula ....
Perhaps I should go back to posting images for you dumb ? .......
-
In biological nomenclature, a type species is the species to which the name of a genus is permanently linked; it is the species that contains the biological type specimen(s) of the taxon.
i.e. Flavobacterium, Drosophila and Primula ....
Perhaps I should go back to posting images for you dumb ? .......
*Sigh*
Ok a type species is the first defined species within a genus. Again you really need to pause and read this stuff.
Lets imagine a biologist has found a brand new species of some insect. A comparision to the type species with the related genus would help the biologist determine which genus to place the new species. If he finds that no genus qualifies he would have to create a brand new genus. The new species would then be the type species for that genus.
For instance for the genus Drosphilia D. funebris is type however there are more than 2000 species within that genus.
This concept of the type is used repeatedly in biology. For instance fossils species have a type fossil that is the first define fossil of a species. All subsequent fossil must match the type fossil to be assigned to that species.
Perhaps you should fully read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(biology) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_genus .
Also slow down your posts and reread them so you stop making such basic errors.
-
Please.....
That's the problem.....
You are imagining ? and want me to join you.....
I will not.....
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Diptera
Family: Drosophilidae
Tribe: Drosophilini
Subtribe: Drosophilina
Infratribe: Drosophiliti
Genus: Drosophila
Type species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila
And you have already been squashed in this thread fella.....
From the fossil record to DNA and now this......
When is the ? gonna cease.....
-
Ape to humans took 6 million years. We see clear evidence of this in the fossil record but you are not going to see that occur in the lab or even in the wild given we have only been looking for 150 years.
Artificial Selection does give interesting result particularly in agriculture. Cabbage is a simple plant that is a popular crop in Russia and elsewhere. In fact its origins are from that region northern Asia basically. Through selective breeding cabbage has been changed into Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale.
That is a pretty significant set of changes to an organism. It is hard to argue that evolution can not produce large scale changes to an organism when farmers for 1000s of years have been using evolution to do just that.@Whar....
This post illustrates your ignorance on the topic of evolution.....
Cabbage did not "evolve" into the other vegetables that you mentioned......
cabbage, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale are genetic modifications of of the same species (Brassica oleracea)......
The plants are selected for desirable characteristics that can be maintained by propagation......
This is no different than the hybridization of cannabis.....
Several genetic variations.....
http://youtu.be/Zk3fCFEy4SU
However, no new species.... let alone "proof" of evolution.....
Silly Europeans......
-
From the wiki link you provide Bambu
Musca funebris or Dorsophilia funebris if you click that link you will find
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Diptera
Family: Drosophilidae
Genus: Drosophila
Subgenus: Drosophila
Species group: funebris species group
Species: D. funebris
Here is some data regarding genus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus
Here is some on species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
You should stick to posting images. When you use words you run into trouble. -
Says the ? trying to pass cabbage off as proof of evolution.....
-
1) I been schooling this ? ass ? Jaded Righteousness..... I seen you trying to get some respect in your tone in my thread.....
It's not about trying to gain respect. If anything, you gained respect from me at that particular point within the midst of losing so much, not the other way around. It's about you seemingly knowing the subject. I don't know much about it; it would only make sense that I ask someone who seems to. Just because I disagree with you on the topic of evolution does not mean I have to be childish and set a grudge against you and call you out of your name or click the wack button in every thread. You're a human being just like I am. Non of this is personal, G. Only a child is disrespectful toward gained respect. Try to grow up a little.2) New York been soft ever since Snoop went through and crushed the buildings.......
LOL.. I'm not from New York nor have I ever lived there. Brooklyn New York isn't the only Brooklyn in the world. Brooklyn is a name that could be given to anything, anyone, or any place. hahaha... LOL @ your opinion of New York and its residents based off what you've seen on a snoop dogg video though. Hahaha.. Children..
-
In both examples there is only one species........
From the wikipedia link you provided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DrosophilaDrosophila is a genus of small flies, belonging to the family Drosophilidae, whose members are often called "fruit flies" or (less frequently) pomace flies, vinegar flies, or wine flies, a reference to the characteristic of many species to linger around overripe or rotting fruit.
The genus Drosophila is made up of several different species, mojavensis and arizonae being two of themOne species of Drosophila in particular, D. melanogaster, has been heavily used in research in genetics and is a common model organism in developmental biology.
lol.. moving on.. -
"Years before Darwin developed the notion of natural selection as a force capable of generating exquisitely complex adaptations, he was struck by the fact that, given the results of geological dating, Creationism required a Creator who intervened piecemeal and repeatedly, over many millions of years, with no indication of any overall plan, and creating many organisms only to see them become extinct. At first a Creationist, Darwin considered this kind of repeated and undirected intervention so dubious that a purely natural explanation began to seem more appealing to him, and this eventually led him to consider natural selection.
Intelligent Design theory makes no attempt to analyze the character of the Designer from the data of the Designer's performance. It is merely concerned with accumulating examples suggesting that there is a Designer, and that Darwinism can be rejected --- and there the theory of Intelligent Design stops.
There are many cases where we don't know the path evolution actually might have taken. It's always possible to point to some adaptation, assert that it could not possibly have come about by accumulated gradual adjustments, and reiterate this assertion for as long as biologists have not come up with any specific evolutionary pathway.
However, this is to look at only half the evidence relevant to the design hypothesis. We also have to consider those many aspects of living organisms which appear, from a design point of view, to be botched and incompetent. If the Designer is so Intelligent, how come he keeps ? up?
Examples of outrageously bad 'design' can usually be explained by the path evolution has taken. There really are cases where 'you can't get here from there', or at least it's too improbable. Since natural selection cannot look ahead and try a radically different approach to solving a particular problem, but always has to move by slow increments from something which has worked in the recent past, there will sometimes be cases where the outcome is just hoplelessly inefficient.
There are innumerable such examples. One is the fact that human babies naturally have to be born through the bone-enclosed pelvic opening. Untold billions of babies and their mothers have died in childbirth because of this elementary 'design flaw', which arose because humans are descended from animals that scampered on all fours. In many cases today, the birth opening which idiot nature failed to hit upon is provided by a surgeon, in a caesarian section. This saves the lives of millions, and in many more cases reduces brain damage to the infant or hours of discomfort to the mother. Any intelligent designer planning the human body from scratch would have installed a birth opening in the lower abdomen, where there is no tight constriction by bones. But natural selection could not accomplish this clear and obvious improvement, because there was no way to get 'there from here' by minute adjustments.
The human body is an exhibition of engineering disasters. The routing of the optic nerve through the front of the retina, so that there is a 'blind spot' in each eye, and the routing of the male ? around the ureter, when it would be so much simpler and more efficient to take a direct route, are other instances. These sorry failings do not contradict the proposition that many features of the human body display marvelous construction, sometimes far exceeding what could have been accomplished by human ingenuity. The two aspects exist side by side: dazzling sophistication and crude sloppiness. ID theory has no explanation to offer for the latter. Darwinism tells us to expect both. A striking example occuring in all mammals is the routing of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which instead of going directly from the brain to the larynx, makes a completely pointless detour to loop around a lung ligament. In the giraffe, whose neck lengthened in the course of evolution, this nerve is twenty feet long, instead of the required one foot.
Why can't evolution itself take care of these problems? Why can't evolution create a new birth canal in humans, reroute the optic nerve into the back of the retina, or shorten the routes of the male ureter and the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? The answer is that once a highly complex 'basic plan' for an animal's body is in place, there are some improvements that cannot be accomplished by slight changes, but only by a radical redesign. There are indeed cases where you can't get here from there, and precisely in such cases, very obvious and simple improvements don't come about in nature, exactly as Darwinism leads us to expect.
Aside from cases of bad design, there are also aspects of the acutal process of evolution which are difficult to explain from a Design point of view. Why did life for at least a billion years consist of nothing but single-celled organisms such as bacteria? Why were all plants non-flowering until 130 million years ago, when flowering plants proliferated into thousands of diverse forms? This doesn't give the impression of a Designer who had any idea where he was going. Facts like these are puzzling if we assume there's a Designer. If there's no Designer, these facts fall naturally into place: they are what we would expect"
--- David R. Steele
This discussion has been closed.